skidance and puzzlelady... would you please give a little thought to the concept of 'trying to prevent unforeseeable consequences'???

Yes, thalidomide had one hell of a lot of bad 'side effects,' to say the least. I met one of them personally... a great manager and software engineer, despite her deformities.

But for anyone to demand that any new development or invention be tested for 'perfect safety for everyone and forever' is ludicrous at its heart.

The good news is that humans seem to be good at identifying the ACTUAL problems that surprise us and often react strongly and effectively in creating controls and new policies.

"Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future..." [Yogi Berra?]

Your concerns about 'unanticipated consequences' were recently illuminated in the Dilbert comic strip.

I had a similar question occur when those first rat-tumor stories came out... Were the rats fed on GMO seeds or the seeds that grew from GMO plants? That, alone, made me wonder where, if any, 'truth' was.

And yes, just like the old saccharine stories, rats got bladder cancer... from the equivalent of a human drinking many gallons of drinks containing it. Of course, drinking that much liquid will result in death anyway. But who's counting? Or thinking.

j, you have a public bright line here, I assume you are thinking about that from an IP standpoint

If you do contact Dr. Chris Bashur, I want the referral, so that I can talk to him about this before he responds.

Chris Bashur's e-mail is cbashur@fit.edu. Mine is jbrenner@fit.edu. We will gladly do contract work. Chris is not a Gulcher yet. He does write proposals to government still, as do most of my colleagues at Florida Tech. We would all rather deal with private enterprises, but many here have not read AS yet.

we are impressed (the first millionaire
is visiting, right now), and wonder about
the projected introduction to the world. -- j

Blood vessel walls are the specialty of one of our new faculty at Florida Tech named Chris Bashur (pronounced Basher). He and I work together on most of his projects, but he is the cardiovascular expert among us. http://www.fit.edu/faculty/profiles/prof...
He is really sharp.

well, sir ... I'm no millionaire, but I have a friend
who is, and the tissue type might well be
blood vessel wall -- for an aneurism repair,
say ... ? and then there's this other millionaire
who had bypass surgery, a close friend ... ?
you are on the front line -- and Thanks!!! -- j

I am going to let him deal with skin, but I am going for a different tissue right now. However, with the correct incentive from a Gulcher, I would reconsider which particular tissue I would look at. Each tissue has its own set of biological, chemical, and physical cues to direct the cells where to go. Primarily the key to new tissue growth is a small ionic current, but the secondary factors that are tissue specific involve activating certain cytokines and, suprisingly enough, certain parts of the immune system.

It is not magic, but it is just becoming known to humans. The complexity of the signaling networks involved for engineering each type of tissue make it very difficult to accept that this evolved purely as a series of accidents. Evolution was certainly involved, but I find it very difficult to accept that there was no great mind involved at any point in the process - probably very long ago and perhaps only at "the beginning". There are just so many issues to get right that even the best in tissue engineering feel like 4 or 5 year olds trying to replicate what normally is done so well naturally.

more equal? -- j

J, this is absolutely magical. after a 10x cobalt
overdose for prostate cancer, my dad had skin
grafts to close the wound which appeared at the
base of his spine. extreme pain, slow recovery
and tedious attending treatment was involved.
this science is super -- Go For It!!! -- j

That is fascinating, isn't it? When two really good students of mine said they wanted to do that, I ponied a few thousand dollars up as seed money, and we have made some significant progress, but certainly nothing like what you saw in the YouTube video. I'm focusing on a different set of tissues entirely.

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.

What I am eventually planning on doing is using the biolistic gun to decellularize extracellular matrix (ECM collagen) in prep for colonization by one's own induced pluripotent stem cells.

As an example, see what has been done at
Carnegie Mellon with burned skin regeneration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjK...

What I am doing is more like what Monsanto does to make its corn insect-resistant. Frankly, corn is just a proof-of-equipment test. I am planning on using the biolistic gun to decellularize extracellular matrix (ECM collagen) to prepare the ECM for later population with one's own induced pluripotent stem cells.

An example of how this works (albeit unfortunately not mine) is with a skin gun developed at Carnegie Mellon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjK...

We are genetically modifying corn. That's been done for a long time. Had it not been done, poor people in dictator-controlled countries would have starved long ago. This summer I am just verifying that I repaired the $60 K gun correctly. I bought it on EBay for about $1 K a year ago and had a student help me refurbish the biolistic gun last fall.

Hmm... the corn or the gun?

Considering some of the natural things some people eat (e.g. Blowfish), I have no concerns about GMOs. So far the evidence is that it has done nothing but benefit humanity.

Um, ok. "Stalemate"? "not an herbacide"? 10x the land? Only sprayed at the ground? I appreciate your logic. But...I'm not sure I agree with some of your facts. How, for example, is Roundup sprayed at only the ground when it's regularly loaded on crop dusters? Even if what you say is true and I'm telling a lie about the crop dusters - if it's safe, who cares if it's sprayed on the food and leaves?

It's not really a debate. I just yearn for more knowledge of this. And, when I see comments that are way out there, like "granola crunchers", I kind of shut down. Might as well say, "Well, he's clean-cut and wearing a white lab coat so I believe him." (Wha?)....

There is a lot of emotion in topics like this - a little name-calling, misinformation. I always see this when a scientific quest goes political. It's too bad, really. I guess that's just part of the modern American landscape.

WADR, Stossel couldn't be more wrong. What has Monsanto done in one case? Inserted a gene to make a plant more tolerant of an herbicide, to justify using ever more herbicide. Herbicide that further treatment of the harvested corn does not wash off. Herbicide that you take when you eat the corn. And they do not tell you any of this, unless and until someone gets a judge to tell them about it.

I find nothing in the principles of Objectivism that justifies wilful dissemblance.

"No person stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner whatever."

He assumes that people are worried. Actually, in California people are not. We had a proposition to just include on the food label if a food had GMO and it was voted down. People, in general, are not interested in GMO.

As a man of science I find the whole story interesting. When I started learning about GMO I had zero concern. As I learned about how GMO is integrated into the farming systems I became very concerned. For starters GMO foods often lead to more exposure to glyphosates. That's worthy of discussion. A good friend of mine who recently graduated from my alma matter with a degree in agricultural engineering won't get near GMO, and is happy to explain why.

As long as GMO companies are honest, thorough, competent, and consider unanticipated consequences, perhaps such foods are safe. However, unless these conditions are met, I think it's another story entirely.

"Is it possible that a product can be created by a company for it's own self interest but is harmful to people?"

If you insert the word "rational" before "self interest", as I did, then the answer is "no." A company that sells a product that they know is unsafe is not being rational because the consequences will be negative. Exactly how negative is unknowable.

When do people consume glyphosate? This is a sincere question, generally glyphosate is not randomly sprayed or broadcast sprayed. A farmer would target the weeds even of only to maximize chemical use and thereby save money. In a corn field, for instance, the herbicide would be directed at the ground and should only come into contact with the base of the corn stalk, not the developing seed head.

There is also an absurd amount of disinformation on the web. Take, for instance, http://offthegridnews.com. An article there (Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Contains Dangerous Glyphosate) states, "Monsanto’s Roundup Ready contains glyphosate, which may be toxic to humans according to a new report." This article has many problems, starting with the most basic fact stated by the first sentence.

1) Roundup Ready does NOT contain glyphosate. It denotes plants that have an engineered resistance to glyphosate damage. From the Monsanto web site:

((Herbicides are key products used in conservation tillage (or no-till) farming, which leaves the soil undisturbed between cropping seasons – therefore being a major force in reducing soil lost to wind and water erosion.

[Roundup brand herbicides'] use on Roundup Ready® crops has allowed farmers to conserve fuel and decrease the overall amount of agricultural herbicides used.

Roundup Ready® Soybeans were commercialized in 1996, followed by alfalfa, corn, cotton, spring canola, sugarbeets and winter canola, which contain in-plant tolerance to Roundup® agricultural herbicides.))

2) "... according to a new report." Which report? Give the name so I can read it for myself to see what it really says.

3) The unnamed report supposedly says that glyphosate "may be toxic to humans." To what confidence level? Toxic in what quantity, by what metabolic pathway and how toxic? There are lots of things we consume that are toxic at higher than normal dosages - sometimes not much higher, though. It doesn't take very many Tylenol to do irreversible liver damage.

4) Not wanting to be liable for libel, they use the word "reportedly" a lot. There was reportedly a woman in Walmart that weighed 400 lbs and had 4 arms and a tail. That doesn't make it true.

5) They present simple, well known facts as though they're revelations of sinister secrets. "A review of the chemical by Natural News also states that the herbicide component “annihilates” the building blocks of life inside plants by ripping amino acids apart..." Wow! Sensational and inaccurate simultaneously! Monsanto's own web site states, "... the herbicide inhibits the activity of an enzyme called EPSP synthase, which in turn prevents the plant from manufacturing certain amino acids essential for plant growth and life."

Then they say, "When glyphosate is mixed with some other chemical ingredients, its harmful strength is reportedly increased. The Roundup Ready ingredient is often combined with foaming agents and surfactants which permit the mixture to penetrate plant leaves." The use of surfactants is absolutely true and which surfactant is very important to the effectiveness of the herbicide. Surfactants are compounds that lower the surface tension (or interfacial tension) between two liquids or between a liquid and a solid. Soap is the most common surfactant that people would be familiar with. Without surfactants you wouldn't be able to put oils into suspension with water to wash them away. No more clean hands, clothes, floors, dishes, etc.

Next they hyperbolize, "... allegedly inspired scientists to create “Roundup Ready Seeds.” The genetically modified seeds have the ability to resist the powers of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready weed killer, enabling them to grow even when the chemical spray touches upon their tiny little sprouts." Again, Roundup Ready is not an herbicide. Next, notice the anthropomorphization of the seeds' "tiny little sprouts" that are given the supernatural power to resist the evil chemical spray. Here the author is so confused that she can't decide if the Roundup Ready seeds are malevolent or adorable. Maybe they're malevolent while they're seeds and adorable when they transform into tiny little sprouts.

You close with, "The consumption of glyphosates, based on what I have seen, may not actually be safe. That is a material fact here." "May not be safe" is not a material fact, it's a conjecture. I did not search for studies on the safety of the consumption of glyphosate by humans. If such a study were commissioned by Monsanto then the granola crunchers wouldn't believe it, and if it were commissioned by Mother Jones then the rest of us wouldn't believe it. Stalemate? Maybe you could submit an FOI request to the FDA or the dept of agriculture, whichever is the regulating body, for the safety studies on Roundup. Start here, if you like (http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=roundup+...)

P.S. Of course I'm familiar with Crunchy Frog! And don't forget Spring Surprise and the sweetie with lark's vomit. Leaded gasoline would keep the crickets away - and kill the plants, thus not maximizing yield. Please stop confusing rational self interest with the deleterious effects of crony capitalism and government regulations designed to protect an industry from the consequences of its own wrongdoing or to raise the barriers to entry for competitors. Those things are the exact opposite of Capitalism.

Carrots are actually pale white and purple, kinda like turnips, or cream colored, like parsnips. They had no particularly high value of Vit A. In around the 15th C, a Dutch farmer (Belgique?) found a brightly colored mutation - orange carrots. He grew them and brought them to market where they were an immediate success and a long time staple, because the Vit A did actually promote health. We do not have Vit A deficiencies because of the orange carrots.

Modern wheat is triploid; wild wheat is monoploid or diploid. All wheat apparently originated from a cross species pollination of a grass and a grain. Cross species, maybe cross genus.

People do not understand the degree to which we have influenced our environment over millennia. Once folks stop screaming about GMO's and let golden rice be distributed in the third world, where it could remedy about 250,000 cases of blindness or death per year (mostly children), I will be glad to discuss scientific GMO testing and boundaries. Until then, let's just push for rationality and the cessation of 'first world death-patronization' for golden rice and its ilk.

Jan
(Incidentally, Monsanto voluntarily gave up its patents for golden rice distribution...and Greenpeace has blocked this for about 15 years. 15 x 250,000...do the math.)